There seems much defensiveness in the comments here along the lines of "not a new thing" and "not unique to LLM/AI".

It seems to deflect, even gaslight TFA.

> For most of the articles Pangram flagged as written by GenAI, nearly every cited sentence in the article failed verification.

So why deflect that into convenient other pedantry (surely not under the guise tech forums often do so)?

WSo why the discomfort for part of HN at an assertion AI is being used for nefarious purposes and creation of alternate 'truths'?

▲

emp17344 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Astroturfing or marketing, I’d guess. I’ve noticed you’re no longer allowed to say negative things about AI here without significant pushback, and I’d bet this isn’t an organic shift in perception.

	▲	malfist 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I've found that generally people reserve down votes for posts that don't add to the conversation, in general, just like we're supposed to do. Its always been down vote city if you happen to criticize political positions that benefit libertarian technologists. But lately anything critical of AI tends to get a lot of down votes. Even on older posts that you can't find on the front page anymore... It feels inorganic

▲

malfist 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There sure are a lot of green names on this post pushing that agenda. Makes you wonder if its astroturfing. And why its nessecary, is AI so fragile it can't let any criticism stand unchallenged?